The final warning of an Obama Presidency

prytoj

Barack Obama speaking on the Chicago public radio station 91.5 FM, WBEZ, on the program “Odyssey” in 2001:

...But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the CONSTITUTIOTN AS A CHARTER OF NEGATIVE LIBERTIES. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to BRING ABOUT REDISTRIBUTIVE CHANGE. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

..Obama: Maybe I'm showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I'm not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y'know, the institution just isn't structured that way.

...The court's just not very good at it, and politically it's very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So, I mean, I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, y'know I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. .....

There's more. Listen for yourself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

An Obama Presidency is INSANE in the fn MEMBRANE

g under p

chiefojibwa wrote:

so now an obama presidency is "insane in the fuckin' membrane"? man, it's gonna be funny watching you lose your shit in 8 days when he wins.

It appears to be slowly happening already but like the rest of us we'll have to deal with which ever candidate gets elected.

Peace

digster

I'm sure it's a coincidence that this is the top story of the Drudge Report.

http://www.drudgereport.com

It's starting to become pretty fun to go to Drudge in the morning these days. Usually, he tries to put up some hint of impartiality, but that's out the window. He seems to be wigging out, and it's great to see.

mammasan

What I don't understand is that the tax policy that Obama is touting is the same plan that Clinton put into action in 1993. Back then the Republicans where fighting tooth and nail stating how it would destroy our economy, especially during a time of recession. If I remember correctly the Clinton's tax plan didn't ruin the economy and we had a budget surplus. Now I'm not thrilled with Obama's plan simply because it doesn't cut spending across the board but all this bullshit about it being socialist or Obama being a left wing radical, even called a Marxist by a reporter, is ridiculous. It is total non-sense and the people who repeat it as truth have no clue as to what they are saying. This tax plan didn't destroy our economy, or turn us into a socialist state, 15 years ago and it's not going to do it now.

I'm not saying that people have to vote for Obama, because I definitely am not, but at least be educated and well informed and vote for or against a candidate based on fact and not some biased talking points.

prytoj

mammasan wrote:

I'm not saying that people have to vote for Obama, because I definitely am not, but at least be educated and well informed and vote for or against a candidate based on fact and not some biased talking points.

These are the words of the man himself. I can't provide more irrefutable non-bias than that.

The man said these things, on tape, irrefutable proof.

aNiMaL

All Obama will do is let the tax credit that GW put in place for the countries wealthiest, expire. And I am glad he is doing it. I was against it from the beginning.

digster

Mammasan, the reason Obama is being called a Marxist/socialist is because it's the bottom of the ninth inning and McCain's far behind in the polls. Obama's tax plans haven't changed for well over a year-and-a-half; it's not like his policy proposals have undergone some radical shift and were therefore a Socialist surprise to the McCain campaign. If they really believed this, they would've been calling Obama's policies socialist from minute one; why then have they only come up now? Because it's a political ploy. It's the same thing with Ayers; whether or not you think it is a legitimate criticism of Obama, it's not just a coinicidence that it suddenly appeared in the last month of campaigning as the McCain camp has fallen farther behind. These criticisms are completely disingenuous.

polaris

what i'd like to know is if voting for obama is insane - what is voting for mccain/palin!??

aNiMaL

polaris wrote:

what i'd like to know is if voting for obama is insane - what is voting for mccain/palin!??

Fucking psycho?

mammasan

prytoj wrote:

These are the words of the man himself. I can't provide more irrefutable non-bias than that.

The man said these things, on tape, irrefutable proof.

I know what he said but take a look at the tax plan he is pushing. It is essentially the same tax plan pushed by Clinton in 1993. The man fucked up and used the redistribution of wealth line a few times but if you look past that and at his plan you would see that that is not the case. As I stated I don't like his plan and I don't like McCain's plan either but if you look at the two plans Obama's is better.

blackredyellow

mammasan wrote:

What I don't understand is that the tax policy that Obama is touting is the same plan that Clinton put into action in 1993. Back then the Republicans where fighting tooth and nail stating how it would destroy our economy, especially during a time of recession. If I remember correctly the Clinton's tax plan didn't ruin the economy and we had a budget surplus. Now I'm not thrilled with Obama's plan simply because it doesn't cut spending across the board but all this bullshit about it being socialist or Obama being a left wing radical, even called a Marxist by a reporter, is ridiculous. It is total non-sense and the people who repeat it as truth have no clue as to what they are saying. This tax plan didn't destroy our economy, or turn us into a socialist state, 15 years ago and it's not going to do it now.

I'm not saying that people have to vote for Obama, because I definitely am not, but at least be educated and well informed and vote for or against a candidate based on fact and not some biased talking points.

That's what kills me... the right wing radio nuts are saying that this will destroy our country, our economy, all of the small businesses, etc. It's a joke, but their listeners are convinced that it will happen.

mammasan

digster wrote:

Mammasan, the reason Obama is being called a Marxist/socialist is because it's the bottom of the ninth inning and McCain's far behind in the polls. Obama's tax plans haven't changed for well over a year-and-a-half; it's not like his policy proposals have undergone some radical shift and were therefore a Socialist surprise to the McCain campaign. If they really believed this, they would've been calling Obama's policies socialist from minute one; why then have they only come up now? Because it's a political ploy. It's the same thing with Ayers; whether or not you think it is a legitimate criticism of Obama, it's not just a coinicidence that it suddenly appeared in the last month of campaigning as the McCain camp has fallen farther behind. These criticisms are completely disingenuous.

I agree and I don';t understand why the Obama's camp just doesn't come out and say that his plan is similar to Clinton's in 1993 and under Clinton's tax plan our economy flourished, I know there where other contributing factors to that, and we had a budget surplus. Under Bush's tax plan, which is basically what McCain is touting, we had record deficit.

Brain of J.Lo

We know that what you're really concerned about is the Muslim invasion of the U.S.

polaris

aNiMaL wrote:

Fucking psycho?

i don't think that quite captures it ...

Mrs.Vedder78

polaris wrote:

what i'd like to know is if voting for obama is insane - what is voting for mccain/palin!??

that makes you psycho!

Edit: darm! aNiMaL beat me to it....

saveuplife

First, more broadly,... why do socialists not like to be called socialist?

Second, his plans do promote movement towards socialism. I'm not saying that that is wrong at all. It's a political opinion. But, I am saying it's just a fact. He wants to redistribute wealth more so than our current "progressive" system. He also wants to increase regulation, increase taxes on the private sector. That grows government's relative size of the economy. Socialism grows out of capitalism. Here's it's exact definition...

Socialism - theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If one can't agree that this is what he (and most Dems) are attempting to do, I don't know what to say. Is he a socialist? I don't know, it's simply a lablel... so who really cares. Is he promoting socialist ideals? YES!

blackredyellow

saveuplife wrote:

Second, his plans do promote movement towards socialism. I'm not saying that that is wrong at all. It's a political opinion. But, I am saying it's just a fact. He wants to redistribute wealth more so than our current "progressive" system.

I still don't get how giving tax cuts is a redistribution of wealth. Granted, they are disproportional in terms of income, but taxes have always been since our progressive tax system has been in place.

Mrs.Vedder78

saveuplife wrote:

First, more broadly,... why do socialists not like to be called socialist?

I'm sure nobody likes to be called something they are not.

I am not a republican and it would bother me to be called one.

Senator Obama is not a socialist so I'm sure it doesnt amuse him to be called one.

polaris

saveuplife wrote:

First, more broadly,... why do socialists not like to be called socialist?

Second, his plans do promote movement towards socialism. I'm not saying that that is wrong at all. It's a political opinion. But, I am saying it's just a fact. He wants to redistribute wealth more so than our current "progressive" system. He also wants to increase regulation, increase taxes on the private sector. That grows government's relative size of the economy. Socialism grows out of capitalism. Here's it's exact definition...

Socialism - theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If one can't agree that this is what he (and most Dems) are attempting to do, I don't know what to say. Is he a socialist? I don't know, it's simply a lablel... so who really cares. Is he promoting socialist ideals? YES!

more than happy to be called a socialist ... but to answer your question: in america, people respond to labels and catch-phrases with liberal, socialist, flip-flopper, etc being example ... people are either too lazy or too something else to see and learn for themselves so they rely on news media, pundits, tv, and such to tell them what they want to hear ...

although obama may promote a plan that has socialist leanings - there is no way he can be called a socialist by any stretch ...

saveuplife

blackredyellow wrote:

That's what kills me... the right wing radio nuts are saying that this will destroy our country, our economy, all of the small businesses, etc. It's a joke, but their listeners are convinced that it will happen.

You would agree that this is not 1993, right? I mean the economic environment is completely different. We are in a much bigger economic downturn than what was experienced in early 90s. Moreover, we may not have a "mixed" congress like was the case in the 90s. It appears the Dems will have full control. Lastly, the 90s harbored the knowledge boom. Computers and the internet took off. This increased efficiency and boosted productivity.

So, the reason I'm scared. We are in a shit storm econonomic environment right now. IMHO, this is way worse then the typical "recession" like 92 or 01. And in this environment we are going to increase taxes on the entire private sector? And We are going to raise spending? On top of that, we don't have a new technology that is going to help us increase efficiency. I just don't think his plan is smart economic policy. But, we'll have four years to debate that.

digster

It's ridiculous to label his plans as socialist. Do parts of his plans have socialism in them? Yes, quite simply because he is left of center and socialism is the extremist leftist position. So, by nature his plans would have socialistic aspects because he's not a conservative. He's a liberal. But making the wide leap to socialism from being a liberal is as unsubstantiated and ludicrous as saying that because of Republican's use of the military and nationalism that they are therefore fascist. Why not? The logic we've used for Obama is that we define his policies by the most extreme language available in the entire leftist ideology. So, from now on, every time McCain stresses "Country First" he's a fascist. It sounds ridiculous then, and it's ridiculous in regards to Obama as well.

I'm wondering if people who are calling Obama and his plans socialist have ever really met socialists or been to a country operating under a quasi-socialist government. Obama is far right compared to the modern socialist/extreme leftist. It's just the same basic inflammatory language that we never would've even heard if Obama and McCain were neck-in-neck in the polls.